ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection following unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a two-case report.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious complication of spinal surgery, including minimally invasive unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) procedures. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is a leading cause of such infections. This report analyses two cases of S. aureus SSI following UBE surgery. Case presentation: Two patients (one male and one female) aged 56 underwent elective UBE surgery. Both patients had inadequate preoperative skin preparation. The cases were complicated by intraoperative fluid leakage, which led to soaked surgical drapes. The second case also involved prolonged operative time and failure of postoperative wound care, with the patient performing unsterile dressing changes at home. Both patients developed deep SSIs caused by S. aureus, as confirmed by culture. This required readmission, endoscopic debridement and targeted antibiotic therapy. Discussion: The differences in the antibiotic susceptibility profiles of the two cases suggest that the SSIs were likely caused by the patients' own colonising flora. Key risk factors identified include inadequate skin preparation, intraoperative fluid leakage, prolonged surgery and breaches in postoperative care. These factors likely facilitated bacterial ingress and infection. In response, the institution implemented three key measures: direct nurse-led preoperative skin cleansing; increased surgical draping layers to prevent fluid saturation; and exclusive physician-performed postoperative dressings. Following these interventions, no new SSI cases were observed for over a year. Conclusion: SSI after UBE surgery is multifactorial. A comprehensive strategy that addresses preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative protocols is crucial for prevention. The simple, targeted interventions described here effectively mitigated the risk of infection in our subsequent practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.